Democrats: What would the politics be behind a Gorsuch filibuster?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why can't they change the law back in say 3.5 or more years depending on midterms etc... then the democrats would have to have enough of a majority to change it back to what it is today...???

It wasn't a law, it was a Senate rule.
You could make a rule that says you need 70 votes to break a filibuster. 80. 90. Whatever.
But it only takes 51 votes to change or eliminate any Senate rule.

 

[The Original Tree]

Dems shot themselves in the foot again.

That never gets old!

 

[Redfish]

Seriously, Gorsuch is far from an extremist.

So was Garland. Who cares?

They were wrong to deny an up or down vote, and should have done it as far from the election as possible. Does that make it right for democrats to do the same?

it would have been a waste of time. The republicans had the majority and were not going to let Obama put 3 liberals on the court.

And they could have by voting his appointees down.

Yes, they could have. But they didn't. He got Sotomayer and Kagan, both far left liberals. No filibusters from the republicans, no bullshit from the media.

 

[Rustic]

Obama nominated Garland, he was well qualified and should be on the court now.
.

Possibly but what does that have to do with the Senate Democrats filibustering Gorsuch's confirmation?

You are right, Republicans get to do whatever they want, but Democrats need to tuck their knees in and roll over.

LOL, nice attempt at a dodge but again what does what happened with Garland have to do with the Democrats filibustering the Gorsuch confirmation ?

Are you attempting to argue that the Democrats should engage in an "Eye for an Eye" move here even when the Eye that they're about to pluck out is there own? Do you realize the Republicans are probably going to nuke the filibuster and basically give Trump a free hand in any future SCOTUS picks IN ADDITION TO the free hand that Harry Reid already provided him for lower court and executive branch nominees? The Senate Democrats are engaged in cutting their own throats for NO GAIN.

It's not about "payback". It is about Republicans electing to simply ignore Obama's nomination. If Republicans can elect to not nominate whoever they politically don't happen to like, then it is only fair that Democrats do too.

Let them go ahead and nuke, they can do that on ANY nomination anyway.

Garland was an extremist... end of story. Jack weed

 

[hadit]

Seriously, Gorsuch is far from an extremist.

So was Garland. Who cares?

They were wrong to deny an up or down vote, and should have done it as far from the election as possible. Does that make it right for democrats to do the same?

it would have been a waste of time. The republicans had the majority and were not going to let Obama put 3 liberals on the court.

And they could have by voting his appointees down.

Yes, they could have. But they didn't. He got Sotomayer and Kagan, both far left liberals. No filibusters from the republicans, no bullshit from the media.

Which makes what the democrats are doing worse.

 

[Redfish]

So was Garland. Who cares?

They were wrong to deny an up or down vote, and should have done it as far from the election as possible. Does that make it right for democrats to do the same?

it would have been a waste of time. The republicans had the majority and were not going to let Obama put 3 liberals on the court.

And they could have by voting his appointees down.

Yes, they could have. But they didn't. He got Sotomayer and Kagan, both far left liberals. No filibusters from the republicans, no bullshit from the media.

Which makes what the democrats are doing worse.

yep, they overplayed their hand and it will come back to bite them in the ass. Just like Reid using the nuclear option to ram obamacare through. They started it and now they don't like it-----------------tough shit.

 

[dannyboys]

Within eight years there will be at least three more strict Constitutionalist SCJ on the bench thanks to Dirty Hairy and those in his party.
That means at least forty years when the US Constitution is safe.
When Ivanka becomes President (why do you all think Ivanka is sitting in on so many meetings? It's to learn how the Government is run. The next four years are her 'apprenticeship' for President.) she'll put another couple of REP SCJs on the bench.
The DEM party won't even exist within two years.
Some 'moderates' will move to the REPs and some will form the new 'Conscience Of America Party' and the extreme Left will form the 'New Socialist Party'.
The radical LIBs in the MSM will dissolve into 'Special Interest' news outlets.

 

[NightFox]

Thank you. So is the filibuster truly just for dramatic optics? .

Of course, politics is mostly theater and case in point, the Democrats are staging a grand production without having the essential ingredient of a VILLAIN , there's nothing credible on Gorsuch, no scandal, no controversy, he falls somewhat on the strict constructionist side of the legal spectrum but nobody has made any credible case that he's an extremist. Most Americans have no idea regarding the mechanics of the arcane rules in the Senate but they do know when one party or the other is setting up the stage for high drama and in this one it's a case of "What the heck are they throwing a tantrum for?", it's not like Trump nominated Darth Cheney or anything.

If the Democrats blow their wad on this nomination when the next one comes up they will have absolutely no way to apply any sort checks on who Trump decides to nominate.

If you weren't a self-proclaimed conservative and/or Republican, you'd be familiar with the word "PRINCIPLE."

Look it up some time. It'll do you good.

You need to cut back on the hallucinogens since I'm neither a Republican nor a conservative nor have I ever proclaimed to be either.

As far as the word "principle" goes, what the fuck would you know about that? What principles do you adhere to?

 

[longknife]

Can someone explain the partisan calculus behind this?

The GOP is going to Reid-Rule him in, and if Trump can pick another justice, they'll do it again.

I'm assuming, then, this is just for perceived political advantage for use during individual 2018 races?
.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

How many votes does it take to get rid of Kagen and Sotomeyer ?

 

[longknife]

How many votes does it take to get rid of Kagen and Sotomeyer ?

They'll be around as long as Bader-Ginsberg has lasted.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

How many votes does it take to get rid of Kagen and Sotomeyer ?

They'll be around as long as Bader-Ginsberg has lasted.

Heavens....let's hope not.

 

[Redfish]

How many votes does it take to get rid of Kagen and Sotomeyer ?

They'll be around as long as Bader-Ginsberg has lasted.

Heavens....let's hope not.

Trump could get 3 more on the court by 2020. Thanks, Harry Reid.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

How many votes does it take to get rid of Kagen and Sotomeyer ?

They'll be around as long as Bader-Ginsberg has lasted.

Heavens....let's hope not.

Trump could get 3 more on the court by 2020. Thanks, Harry Reid.

And I will feel totally justified voting for someone who I'd probably beat to a pulp if I had to be around him.